December 6, 2008

I said that back in December 2004 about the sign in the Wisconsin Capitol. Here's my old post and here's the picture I took of the sign:

An identical sign is causing a stir now in the state of Washington. Here's Bill O'Reilly getting steamed up about it.

Another December, another battle in the "War on Christmas." I think the sensible people don't want to fight about religion, but there are always extremists -- pro-religion and anti-religion -- who seek glory in the fighting. Tolerance and peace is the better path. Please take it.

59 comments:

Unless religious organizations can post signs of their beliefs, this one has no business in a gov building. The one on the premises of the Legislative Building in Olympia was next to a Nativity scene. That's appropriate as long as the Jews, Muslims, Hindis............

rhhardin: were those pictures taken at the same time of day? I love the differences in shadow!

I agree that the FFRF's words are a little hard-headed, though no more hard-headed than, say, Jeremiah Wright's or any Fundamentalist Baptist talking about ho-mo-sexuality.

But I see it's time for Conservatives to wheel out the tired old War on Christmas meme. I guess they're right -- sixteen people were shot to death walking into a church to celebrate the second Sunday of Advent here in Madison. Police suspect anti-Christmas terrorists.

Can somebody please explain the difference to me between annoying religious people who force their views upon you and annoying anti-religious people who force their views upon you?

Why do some people feel the need to crap all over other people's beliefs? Are they that insecure? Live and let live. I don't go around making fun of Hindus because I don't share their beliefs. They aren't hurting me; if I did, I wouldn't be a courageous defender of the truth, I would just be an asshole.

'Called to hope' is a biblical phrase. It is an expression of the whole life of the New Testament's community of hope. The person who believes knows that he has been born again to a living hope. Through Christ's resurrection from the dead an incomparable future has been thrown open to hope--incomparable because it is imperishable. Indestructible and sure, the kingdom of God's liberty and peace stands open, for the renewal of heaven and earth.

Yet, this isn't really an expression of so much of contemporary Christianity or other organized religion.

ON the contrary, what we really feel is anxiety: that vague, oppressive feeling about what is going to happen which always expects the worst, and the gloom which does not believe oneself or other people capable of anything positive. Anxiety is the reason why so many people only see the future ads a threat to the present; they no longer view it as a chance for something new.

Anxiety is the reason why many people no longer understand what is going on in the world and look round for scapegoats among its leaders. The general anxiety is laying us open to public blackmail, and so it is making us aggressive and angry.

Tolerance and peace are expressions of a hope, a hope that neither side in this war of Christmas possess.

Hope is more than feeling. Hope is more than experience. Hope is more than foresight. Hope is a command. Obeying it means life, survival, endurance, standing up to life until death is swallowed up in victory. Obeying it means never giving way to the forces of annihilation in resignation or rage. 'It is not so much our sins that bring disaster upon us; it is despair,' said John Chrysostom, on of the Fathers of the church.

Today we call this frustration. The command to hope, on the other hand, is the power behind all the commandments which preserve life and show us the way to liberty.

~Jurgen Moltmann, Experiences of God

Which seems to suggest that a good many people involved in such a war, have no idea who or what they are fighting for. That puts such people in perspective, helpful as we run into them in all kinds of contexts this holiday season.

Why make a holiday sign that attacks other religious groups? What if, instead of a creche, the Christians had put up a sign saying that atheists were fools with hearts hardened against God? I doubt the Governor would have allowed it.

A better atheist sign would just say something like, "Happy Winter Solstice! May you enjoy the beauty of our natural world as we work together to improve life for mankind," or something like that.

We are constantly inundated with christian and other religious propaganda. That's okay, it doesn't bother me, but I'm tired of people assuming that atheists have nothing worth saying. I see nothing wrong with this sign. It is as offensive to christians and other religions as the unending stream of religious messages are to me. That is, it isn't offensive in the least, it is simply a statement of belief.

The problem is that the nature of religion, that one must believe in magic without proof -- or even wanting proof -- that anyone objecting is evil and offensive.

We're fighting a war against intolerant and murderous muslims right now. Currently christians aren't typically murderous, but objecting to this sign does lean them in the intolerant direction.

Anyone can feel offense for anything, as we're learning in this politically correct generation. Grownups don't worry about this stuff.

We are constantly inundated with christian and other religious propaganda.

You could say the exact same thing of secularism.

Besides, where is the Christian display on government property that attacks atheism? The Christians are using their display to endorse their own beliefs. The atheist display is being used to attack the beliefs of others.

Surely they could have come up with a pro-atheist rather than anti-Christian display for the holidays.

Also, aesthetics. The sign is lame and uncreative. Just a piece of paper in a frame. Couldn't someone have bothered to make something cool or even beautiful? They should have rejected the display, no matter what it said or who it was from, on the grounds that it sucks.

Reason informs us that most of our beliefs are myths and superstition--including, of course, our belief in reason....There is a novel by Saul Bellow where one of the characters rants against her atheist parents for raising her without religious beliefs. She calls it child abuse. No child should be raised to believe that grandma is not in heaven smiling down, but is currently worm food....We let children find out Santa Claus is a fraud at their own pace. We should let adults discover that humanity is a chance by-product of primeval slime in their own good time.

And don't forget that back in something like Year III of the Revolution, old, decayed, Christianist Notre Dame de Paris was rededicated as a Temple of Reason. They had to add extra guillotines down the street at the Conciergerie to accommodate all those pesky priests with their unreasonable beliefs.

Now if you want to see me about all the heretics, Jews, et al., the Christians burnt at the stake, I'll raise you a Ukrainian starvation and a Holocaust, both brought to you by "scientific" regimes, who had no need for superstitious religions or their outmoded ethics.

We will shortly be joined by someone who will claim that the percentages killed by regimes professing a basis in reason and/or science were actually much less than those killed by traditionally religious-minded governments and rulers, and that we don't need no steenking ethics, because, well, everyone just KNOWS how to behave these days.

Isn't celebrating the winter solstice a wiccan/pagan/druid/etc kind of thing? They're far from being "reasonable" atheists as much as I can tell. I mean, the shortest day of the year is scientific fact, but...so what? To say that is a "season of the winter solstice" gives it more meaning than an atheist should even care about.

Palladian said: "Atheists are supergeniuses who bravely rejected the notion of God and THEY WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW!!!"

Some, perhaps, are supergeniuses. Others of us would like to see humans embrace reason, and turn from religion, not because of our own egos, but because we think it would be a net positive. As someone commented upthread, we're in a fight to the death with fanatics who kill children in order to secure their 72 raisins in the afterlife.

Theo said: "I'll raise you a Ukrainian starvation and a Holocaust, both brought to you by "scientific" regimes, who had no need for superstitious religions..."

But Stalin's and Hitler's regimes were two of the most religious in history -- they just started their own religions, cults of personality with the ruler as God. The Nazis even incorporated elements of mysticism and pre-Christian religions into their manufactured mythology, to justify and sugar-coat the Holocaust.

This was, on one level, a clever move, because it seems likely that a certain amount of religiousness is a natural part of the human condition. (On another level, it led to their downfall, as the antisemitic part of their mythos drove all of the great Jewish atomic physicists out of Germany and to the US).

I'm no supergenius; far from it. I just lack the ability to believe without evidence; and I'm particularly skeptical when asked to believe things that anyone would like to believe. And if 2 billion Muslims had this same deficiency, we'd all be a lot better off.

Freeman Hunt said: "Surely they could have come up with a pro-atheist rather than anti-Christian display for the holidays...Couldn't someone have bothered to make something cool or even beautiful?"

Valid points. This sign is obnoxious, counterproductive, and has pretty low production value compared to a good nativity scene. I would have no problem with the local authorities rejecting it on aesthetic grounds; and anyone proposing this display is an idiot if they think it's going to change anything for the positive.

Actually, as I understand the phrase "politically correct", the proscribed use of the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas is the quintessential bow to political correctness, isn't it?

I'm not sure why this is so. Why is it offensive to offer someone a "Merry Christmas"? Are Jews actually offended by this? I'm neither Jewish nor Christian, and I take no offense at either "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah".

No one is demanding someone say "Merry Christmas". But PC demands you say "Happy Holidays" and *Not* "Merry Christmas". Many stores DEMAND their employees say "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas".

The ACLU has sued Schools for calling the December school break "Christmas Vacation".

Costco wants you to do your "Christmas" shopping with them, while refusing to recognize that Christmas even exists.Take Action!

Send your e-mail to Costco. Let Costco know that you will exercise "your privilege" of shopping only at stores that recognize Christmas. Remind Costco that their competitors are vying for your business too, and you will shop accordingly.

I, for one, don't want to see a crèche at every corner. I certainly don't want to see one on public property. I say, keep your mythology to yourself and to those who share it with you. But if you want to express it publicly, let others do the same.

Public display of Christian (and Judaic) symbols on public property may represent merriment to those who follow the respective religions, but it is an affront to everyone else. What better way to express this than to produce a display that sends the same message.

I don't see any difference in the quality of the message between all these displays. They all tell the audience, "Mine is bigger than yours."

Solstice is a non-religious event even if some religions tie some significance to it. I am perfectly happy to "celebrate" solstice as a moderately rare, periodic natural occurrence. This is nothing to do with my religion--or its self-professed absence.

My religion in none of your god-damn business any more than yous is a business of mine. Enjoy your religious symbolism for all it's worth and let the atheists--whatever you may think of them--enjoy theirs. If for atheists to be happy they must express their belief that your religion is bunk, let them--that's what tolerance is.

FWIW, I am not an atheist, but I agree with their description of organized religion.

ShadowFox, I disagree with those who insist that stores use "Christmas" in their advertisements. I think you're right that it is bullying and uncalled for. However, I don't seewhy a store has to insist, for instance, that its employees refrain from wishing customers a Merry Christmas.

I see the reason behind the government not endorsing a religion by having displays on public property. I think this sign is in the same vein, as you apparently do if I may, as a religious display.

Beyond that, I think the blog post title is right. It is sneering at religion. I think that is different than the display of a crèche, although again, I don't need to see either on public property.

Haha. Have you ever met a proselytizing atheist who was a "gentle cynic"? Me neither.

Nor a proselytizing religious person who was a 'gentle believer'.

Atheists are supergeniuses who bravely rejected the notion of God and THEY WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW!!!

No. I, for instance, am simply utterly unconvinced. No rejection needed. You have the cart before the horse. I also probably spend more time dealing harshly with asshole atheists than you do. On purpose. I enjoy the hunt.

Like religious proselytizers who want the world to know their joy, in your face atheists are frequently abjectly stupid on the subject of belief and reality in general.

Isn't celebrating the winter solstice a wiccan/pagan/druid/etc kind of thing?

Why, yes. Yes, it is.

As for Alpha's silly idea that someone wants to force non-Christians to say "Merry Christmas." I expect anyone to use the greeting of their own religion. I certainly wish joy to them in their own celebrations. We ought to practice tolerance.

Freedom from religion is not tolerance. It's intolerance by definition. The fact that it's intolerant of *all* religions is hardly an excuse.

(Particularly when they are too stupid to realize that Winter Solstice is a religious holy day.)

Why should an atheist single out Christmas as a time to express his hatred of other religions? Of what significance is this time of year?

But, hey, if it's somehow required to allow people to make public jackasses of themselves, by all means. Maybe I'll go up there and demand a picture of myself be placed prominently. (We all secretly worship ourselves, I'm just admitting it.)

Back when I used to work at Dell, someone complained that the annual holiday party wasn't being called a Christmas party and started ranting about a war on christmas and how we shouldn't be afraid to call it a christmas party. Somehow, this dummy didn't realize that Michael Dell is Jewish!

His little daughters were so cute at the party. This was back when Dell was still small enough for the whole company to have one holiday party. Those days are long gone!

Christians fight to allow public prayers, to display the ten commandments, to insist that sex education classes mention marriage. But they forget that if they get those "rights", views they find abhorrent will also be presented using the same "rights".

Separation of church and state isn't just a good idea for governments, but for religion as well. Religions ignore this at their peril.

But they forget that if they get those "rights", views they find abhorrent will also be presented using the same "rights".

I don't think they forget it. Sterilizing public life of religious expression is promoting secularism, and they find it abhorrent, so they fight for those things you mentioned.

Again though, is this controversy about religious equality or about one group wanting to put up something directly insulting and inartful while the other group is not doing the same? Does it make any difference which group is which?

Where's the supposed hate? Is it more hateful than the ten commandments? Is it more hateful than "there is but one god and his messenger is Mohammed?"

Is it more hateful than damnation and eternal hell fire?

Come on. If you don't agree with the sign, how is it hateful? If you don't agree, then ignore it. That's what atheists do every day of the year. I have no problem with a creche or a cross here and there, or "in god we trust" on my money. I know that it is meaningless and that any evil implied by someone else's belief in a god is not allowed to control me because of the Constitution.

And secularism is not a religion. It is the elimination of religious reasoning from public acts. Since no two religions ever agree, it's for everyone's benefit. Otherwise we'll have constant fights over the meaning of the eucharist, the trinity, tritheism and monotheism, etc.

I really think many christians are trying to compete with muslims for intolerance.

We are constantly inundated with christian and other religious propaganda.

"You could say the exact same thing of secularism."

One might say it, but one would be hard pressed in a country founded on the separation of church and state to make a valid point. If someone wishes to spout religious views when dealing with me, then that person needs to keep a grip when I rebuke them. Don't bring them up and I'll not do so either. That, in essence, is secularism. Respect my disinterest.

"Religious people have declared war on gay people. I, in return, declare war on those hateful motherfuckers."

Man, talk about a homosexual/narcissist stereotype. It's just all about you, isn't it?

We're discussing separation of church and state, and the propriety of whether a small group of atheists should put up a controversial sign, and why it is a good idea or a bad idea.

And you should watch your language. You may not realize it, but "motherfucker" is considered vulgar and rude. People who use such terms in polite society are typically considered not smart enough to think of better ways to say things. In other words, they weaken the effect of their argument.

But I don't think that happened in this case. Your argument couldn't be much weaker.

Well, what if all the religionists got together and put up a sign that said "Atheists are evil assholes"?

I'd consider that hateful.

Saying that someone's going to Hell--and I hasten to point out that the average creche doesn't feature the damnation part of the theology--isn't hateful, any more than the theory of gravity is hateful.

It might be wrong and there are certainly those who enjoy watching others suffer the unwanted effects of gravity (or damnation), but the statement is not inherently hateful.

The fact that the best these atheists can do is to call those who disagree with them hateful robots tells you exactly where they're coming from.

Note that a Christian will, at least, generally give an atheist credit for his own damnation. You choose not to see God.

Disagree with an atheist (like these) and you've obviously been brainwashed. Another reason atheism can be annoying: No chance for humility whatsoever. A Christian at least says, "There but for the grace of God go I."

One might say it, but one would be hard pressed in a country founded on the separation of church and state to make a valid point. If someone wishes to spout religious views when dealing with me, then that person needs to keep a grip when I rebuke them.

You're getting wrong the exact same thing that the freedom from religion people get wrong.

Separation of church and state does not even *imply* separation of church and life. Our country was founded by people who wanted to observe their own religion without persecution. The idea, the mere suggestion to them that the *proper* way to do things was to worship secretly would describe exactly what they hoped to leave behind.

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Because I'm Christian and Lutheran I do not have some bizarre right not to be aware of, see or hear, Baptists or Jews or Hindus or anyone else.

The same goes for atheists or the freedom from religion people. You don't have a right to force everyone else around you to remove their religious expression from public life. That is not freedom, it's tyranny. There is no noble thought that goes behind it other than the wish to force others to conform to your wishes for your comfort.

Freedom *from* Religion violates the first and second amendments. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. There is NO getting around that.

Sure, if someone comes up to you and starts to tell you that you need to be saved, you can tell them you're not interested or even tell them they're an idiot or call them names or *rebuke* them.

Sure, if someone comes up to you and says "Merry Solstice!" you can tear them a new one for offending you with their Wiccan religion and go on a diatribe about how anyone claiming that or a druidic tradition has simply made it all up wholesale as nothing survives. And you'd be a jerk. But that's your right to be a complete jerk. Lots of people are.

And sure, if you're walking past a house festive with Christmas lights and an inflatable Santa in the front yard, you can be a real *sshole and *rebuke* the people for having the NERVE to put their religious celebration out there for you to see.

Synova, you're getting a bit confused here. This is not just in someone's yard. This is in a government building. The farce is that someone seems to think that if they display all religious ideologies contained in a community, then the government is free to display religious symbols and ideologies.

Government display of religion is tantamount to government endorsement of a religion and this violates the first amendment. It's that simple.

What this rather silly sign does is show that if the government appears to endorse a counter-religious view in addition to a religious view, then suddenly some people think this is no longer tolerable.

Well they're right, it isn't tolerable. But the point is still there. If you don't want the government to put up a sign similar to this, then you should be equally willing to accept that the government should not be putting up a nativity scene.

It's really very simple and it's unbelievable how people even find room for debate about this. You'd think that religious leaders would be beating down the doors to keep the government from trying to interpret or endorse their religion. It's none of the government's business.

What is especially nice about this sign is that it magnifies the difference between a neutral secularism and atheism. Many of the people railing against secularism aren't really against government neutrality. What they really want is government endorsement of Christianity, and they throw tantrums (and apparently acid) until they get their way.

The First Amendment mentions establishment of religion, not display or endorsement. All the creches on all the courthouse lawns in America do not amount to statutory establishment of religion, which means churches funded by tax money, and clerical courts whose decisions matter to the state.

There's a distinction to be made between "the government" and the people who work in the government. If Sally or Joe at the assessor's office has a little creche on the desk, that's not "the government" endorsing religion. Now put the creche on the lawn in front of City Hall.

To get back to the original post: I'm an atheist, and I object to that sign.It's just poking the neighbors in the eye, rude, stupid, and designed to provoke exactly this kind of controversy. Do you think that group might be having a membership drive?

blake: [Uriah Heep] There's nobody as humble as an atheist, who has no God looking after him, keeping track of his every thought and deed. The atheist is just another microbe, and damned glad to be that, rather than just nothing at all. [/Uriah Heep]

I was referring specifically to a specific type of personality and hardly one restricted to atheists.

In fact, in fairness to atheists and materialists in general, I've never found that they were restricted from having any characteristic--even if I couldn't figure out how that characteristic derived from their beliefs. (Just as those who call themselves Christians don't seem to be restricted in their behavior, bad or good or at odds with their beliefs.)

But the comparison to the microbe is interesting; some would say that materialism as a philosophy was heavily promoted by totalitarian states who needed the license to be able to treat men as animals. (However, we have this going elsewhere so, you know...)

Public display of Christian (and Judaic) symbols on public property may represent merriment to those who follow the respective religions, but it is an affront to everyone else.

How, precisely, is displaying one set of symbols an affront to those who prefer a different set of symbols? Whatever happened to "Celebrate Diversity"? The more symbols the better. This dog-in-the-manger approach sounds like a reason to ban gay marriage: Government recognition of same sex couples may represent merriment to those of that persuasion, but it is an affront to everyone else.

Repeat after me: This is no skin off my ass, as long as I can get my symbols up there.